Due to the geographic coverage nature of wireless service, there are hundreds of thousands of cell towers in the United States. For example, in 2014, it was estimated that there were more than 310,000 cell towers in the United States. Cell towers can have heights up to 1,500 feet or more. There are various requirements for cell site workers (also referred to as tower climbers or transmission tower workers) to climb cell towers to perform maintenance, audit, and repair work for cellular phone and other wireless communications companies. This is both a dangerous and costly endeavor. For example, between 2003 and 2011, 50 tower climbers died working on cell sites (see, e.g., www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/cell-tower-deaths/in-race-for-better-cell-service-men-who-climb-towers-pay-with-their-lives/). Also, OSHA estimates that working on cell sites is 10 times more dangerous than construction work, generally (see, e.g., www.propublica.org/article/cell-tower-work-fatalities-methodology). Furthermore, the tower climbs also can lead to service disruptions caused by accidents. Thus, there is a strong desire, from both a cost and safety perspective, to reduce the number of tower climbs.
Concurrently, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), referred to as drones, is evolving. There are limitations associated with UAVs, including emerging FAA rules and guidelines associated with their commercial use. It would be advantageous to leverage the use of UAVs to reduce tower climbs of cell towers. US 20140298181 to Rezvan describes methods and systems for performing a cell site audit remotely. However, Rezvan does not contemplate performing any activity locally at the cell site, nor various aspects of UAV use. US20120250010 to Hannay describes aerial inspections of transmission lines using drones. However, Hannay does not contemplate performing any activity locally at the cell site, nor various aspects of constraining the UAV use. Specifically, Hannay contemplates a flight path in three dimensions along a transmission line.
Of course, it would be advantageous to further utilize UAVs to actually perform operations on a cell tower. However, adding one or more robotic arms, carrying extra equipment, etc. presents a significantly complex problem in terms of UAV stabilization while in flight, i.e., counterbalancing the UAV to account for the weight and movement of the robotic arms. Research and development continues in this area, but current solutions are complex and costly, eliminating the drivers for using UAVs for performing cell tower work.
3D modeling is important for cell site operators, cell tower owners, engineers, etc. There exist current techniques to make 3D models of physical sites such as cell sites. One approach is to take hundreds or thousands of pictures and to use software techniques to combine these pictures to form a 3D model. Generally, conventional approaches for obtaining the pictures include fixed cameras at the ground with zoom capabilities or pictures via tower climbers. It would be advantageous to utilize a UAV to obtain the pictures, providing 360 degree photos from an aerial perspective. Use of aerial pictures is suggested US 0100231687 to Armory. However, this approach generally assumes pictures taken from a fixed perspective relative to the cell site, such as via a fixed, mounted camera and a mounted camera in an aircraft. It has been determined that such an approach is moderately inaccurate during 3D modeling and combination with software due to slight variations in location tracking capabilities of systems such as Global Positioning Satellite (GPS). It would be advantageous to adapt a UAV to take pictures and provide systems and methods for accurate 3D modeling based thereon to again leverage the advantages of UAVs over tower climbers, i.e., safety, climbing speed and overall speed, cost, etc.
In the process of planning, installing, maintaining, and operating cell sites and cell towers, site surveys are performed for testing, auditing, planning, diagnosing, inventorying, etc. Conventional site surveys involve physical site access including access to the top of the cell tower, the interior of any buildings, cabinets, shelters, huts, hardened structures, etc. at the cell site, and the like. With over 200,000 cell sites in the U.S., geographically distributed everywhere, site surveys can be expensive, time-consuming, and complex. The various parent applications associated herewith describe techniques to utilize UAVs to optimize and provide safer site surveys. It would also be advantageous to further optimize site surveys by minimizing travel through virtualization of the entire process.
Again, with over 200,000 cell sites in the U.S., each time there is maintenance or installation activity at each cell site, operators and owners typically require a close-out audit which is done to document and verify the work performed. For example, the maintenance or installation activity can be performed by a third-party installation firm (separate from an operator or owner) and an objective of the close-out audit is to provide the operator or owner verification of the work as well as that the third-party installation firm did the work in a manner consistent with the operator or owner's expectations. Conventionally, close-out audits are performed by another firm, i.e., a third-party inspection firm, separate from the third-party installation firm, the owner, and the operator. Disadvantageously, this conventional approach with a separate third-party inspection firm is inefficient, expensive, etc.
Also, with over 200,000 cell sites, it is difficult to monitor activity, namely configurations, physical structure, surroundings, etc., and associated changes. The typical arrangement includes a cell site owner, which is typically a real estate company, leasing space to cell site operators, i.e., wireless service providers. It is incumbent that the cell site owners maintain accurate records of the cell sites, including the configuration (i.e., are the operators deploying more equipment than agreements state?), physical structure (i.e., are there mechanic issues with the cell site?), surroundings (i.e., are there safety issues?), and the like. Conventional approaches require physical site surveys to obtain such information which with over 200,000 cells sites is expensive, time consuming, slow, etc.